DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 12, 14-16 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieder (US 2022/0225720) in view of Coccia (US 2021/0068475).
Regarding claim 1, Frieder teaches a liner (fig. 15) for a protective garment, the protective garment having a surface, the liner comprising:
a support structure (fig. 15, para. [0092], structure 300) having a web of support material (para. [0089], structure 300 comprised of polymeric foams such as EPS, EPP) defining a plurality of openings (fig. 15, openings 302); and
a plurality of cushion pads (fig. 15, structure 102) connectable to the support structure, each cushion pad having an outer cushion portion (fig. 15, projections 120; also para. [0092], structure 300 being sandwiched between two lattice structures, then there are one inner cushion portion and one outer cushion) configured to extend between the surface of the protective garment and the support structure (para. [0090], when the whole system is connected to the helmet shell, the projections 120 are configured to extend between a surface of the helmet shell and the structure 300), and an inner cushion portion (fig. 15, the opposite part of the structure 102; para. [0092], structure 300 being sandwiched between two lattice structures, then there are one inner cushion portion and one outer cushion) extending opposite the outer cushion portion on an opposite side of the support structure relative to the outer cushion portion (fig. 15, para. [0092]), each one of the plurality of cushion pads having a plurality of layers (para. [0069], layers 114) formed of strings (para. [0069], struts 106) disposed in a manner to define a repeating pattern (para. [0069], lattice structure 102 includes a plurality of layers 114, each layer 114 comprising cells 104, which comprises struts 106), with the plurality of layers being stacked on one another to define one or more cells along a thickness of the cushion pad (fig. 15 ), the plurality of layers having a first section and a second section, the inner cushion having the first section and the outer cushion portion having the second section (fig. 15, para. [0092]), the first section and the second section being stacked on top of one another in a direction of the thickness (fig. 15, para. [0092]), the strings of the first section of the plurality of layers defining a first repeating pattern (fig. 15), and the strings of the second section of the plurality of layers defining a second repeating pattern (fig. 15), the first repeating pattern and the second repeating pattern providing respective impact absorption behaviors (para. [0064], lattice structure 102 is configured to provide impact protection to the user).
Frieder does not clearly teach the second repeating pattern is different than the first repeating pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Coccia teaches the first section and the second section being stacked on top of one another in a direction of the thickness (fig. 12), the strings of the first section of the plurality of layers defining a first repeating pattern (fig. 12, the base 6), and the strings of the second section of the plurality of layers defining a second repeating pattern (fig. 12, the top part 7, 8) different than the first repeating pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Frieder with the second repeating pattern different than the first repeating pattern as suggested by Coccia for the benefit of specific protection for specific locations of the helmet.
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia teaches the repeating pattern is defined in each layer of the plurality of layers (Frieder, fig. 15, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia teaches the repeating pattern is defined by at least two adjacent layers of the plurality of layers (Frieder, fig. 15, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia teaches the repeating pattern includes a lattice pattern (Frieder, para. [0069]), a honey comb pattern (Frieder, para. [0066]), a hexagonal pattern (Frieder, fig. 4E) or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia teaches the strings of at least some of the plurality of layers are axially offset in at least one direction relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers, rotationally offset relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers, or a combination thereof (Frieder, fig. 2, para. [0069], the lattice structure 102 includes a plurality of layers 114, each layer comprising cells 104, which comprises struts 106; cells 104 have shapes such as frustum, cylinder, cone, pyramid, polygonal, spherical; then strings of at least some of the plurality of layers are axially offset in at least one direction relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers or rotationally offset relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia does not teach at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and parallel to one another.
However, Coccia teaches at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and parallel to one another (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Coccia with the teaching that at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and parallel to one another as taught by Coccia for the benefit of providing various matrices formed by several layers to define a structure composed of individual open cells which are mutually connected and arranged mutually opposite and side by side (Coccia, para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia does not teach at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and angled relative to one another.
However, Coccia teaches at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and angled relative to one another (figs. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Coccia with the teaching that at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and angled relative to one another as taught by Coccia for the benefit of providing various matrices formed by several layers to define a structure composed of individual open cells which are mutually connected and arranged mutually opposite and side by side (Coccia, para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia teaches at least some of the plurality of layers are non-planar (Frieder, fig. 2, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 44, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia teaches the support structure is made of resilient material (Frieder, para. [0089], structure 300 comprised of polymeric foams such as EPS, EPP).
Claims 40-43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieder (US 2022/0225720) and Coccia (US 2021/0068475), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly (US 2014/0201890).
Regarding claim 40, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia does not clearly teach each cushion pad comprises a groove intermediate the outer cushion portion and the inner cushion portion for engaging a respective one of the plurality of openings.
However, Frieder teaches hooks may be incorporated into lattice structure 102 to couple to and retain structure 300 (para. [0091]); and the structure 300 is sandwiched between two lattice structures (para. [0092]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kelly teaches a groove (fig. 4J, a groove in the middle portion of the pad) intermediate the outer cushion portion and the inner cushion portion for engaging a respective one of the plurality of openings (fig. 10, openings in the chassis).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hooks in the cushion pad of Frieder with a groove intermediate the outer cushion portion and the inner cushion portion as taught by Kelly for the benefit of securing the pads to the 3D structure and maintaining the position of the pads relative to each other, the shell and/or the head in a configuration or position to protect a user’s head (Kelly, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 41, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia-Kelly teaches each one of the plurality of openings is complementary shaped relative to one or more of the plurality of cushion pads so that each cushion pad engages the respective one of the plurality of openings (Frieder, fig. 15).
Regarding claim 42, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia-Kelly does not teach the support structure comprises support members for connecting the support structure to the surface of the protective garment in a spaced-apart relation relative to the surface of the protective garment.
However, Kelly teaches the support structure (fig. 17, chassis 1715) comprises support members (fig. 17, projection 1717) for connecting the support structure to the surface of the protective garment in a spaced-apart relation relative to the surface of the protective garment (fig. 10, para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Coccia-Kelly with support members as taught by Kelly for the benefit of removably coupling the chassis to a shell of a helmet (Kelly, para. [0083]) and maintaining the position of the pads relative to each other, the shell and/or the head in a configuration or position to protect a user’s head (Kelly, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 43, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia-Kelly does not teach each support member comprises a connection pad, the connection pad having mechanical properties allowing a relative movement of the support structure with respect to the surface of the protective garment.
However, Kelly teaches each support member comprises a connection pad (para. [0083], hook-and-loop fastener), the connection pad having mechanical properties allowing a relative movement of the support structure with respect to the surface of the protective garment (para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Coccia-Kelly with a connection pad as taught by Kelly for the benefit of removably coupling the chassis to a shell of a helmet (Kelly, para. [0083]) and maintaining the position of the pads relative to each other, the shell and/or the head in a configuration or position to protect a user’s head (Kelly, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 45, the modified structure Frieder-Coccia does not clearly teach two support structures, each support structure being engaged by a different set of the plurality of cushion pads, each support structure supporting the different set of the plurality of cushion pads at a different cushion pad height.
However, Kelly teaches two support structures, each support structure being engaged by a different set of the plurality of cushion pads, each support structure supporting the different set of the plurality of cushion pads at a different cushion pad height (figs. 15-19, para. [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Coccia with two support structures, each support structure being engaged by a different set of the plurality of cushion pads as taught by Kelly for the benefit of providing different arrangement of pads relative to a helmet shell and a wearer’s head which depends on user’s activities (Kelly, para. [0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights